Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 126 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#48292 - 03/08/13 06:32 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
TT, well in one way. But in fact this just pushes the earliest common ancestor back that far. This could have been inherited from an ancestor of the modern humans. So the modern human race doesn't have to be that old. I think it depends on how you define human. That is one of the things that is quite controversial. Just figuring out whether a fossil is a member of genus homo can be tricky. If this report winds up being accepted than it just says that whoever the common ancestor was probably a member of genus homo.

In fact the abstract points out that this could be a result of crossbreeding between modern humans and a related species the way they have found that there was crossbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
.
#48296 - 03/10/13 06:09 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Orac
As I said I am not forgetting this arguement at all and I want to come back to it. I totally disagree with everything you have written but it can wait for now I need to fill in some detail. It is you who is now being argumentative I have said on at least 3 occasions lets sort the science and come back to this.

This IS the science. you continue to avoid it for some reason.

Originally Posted By: Orac

Quote:

In 1999, Zeilinger abandoned atom optics for experiments with very complex and massive macro-molecules - fullerenes. The successful demonstration of quantum interference for and molecules (fullerenes) in 1999 opened up a very active field of research. Key results include the most precise quantitative study to date of decoherence by thermal radiation and by atomic collisions and the first quantum interference of complex biological macro-molecules. This work is continued by Markus Arndt.

And? Again, you're pointing at exceptions and claiming that they are generalities. Macro objects, under very specific conditions, can be made to exhibit quantum behaviours. But under the conditions in which life exists, theses structures no longer exhibit such behaviours. Take your own example - fullerenes. Instead of wikipedia, lets look at the actual paper:
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/double-slit-C60.pdf

To make this work - i.e. to force QM behaviours into the macro workd, he had to:
1) Ionize the fullerenes at 3000K
2) Fire them individually at the target, so they could not interact with eachother and destroy their QM state.
3) Use a high-power laser to forcibly maintain their coherence state, and
4) Use machinery to select only those particles with the correct velocity to exhibit QM behaviours under the conditions they created.

Life doesn't experience any of that - all biomolicules will degrade at temps far below 3000K, high-powered lasers are no where to be seen, and there are no filtration systems or single-molecule generators to prevent a loss of quantum states due to interactions with other molecules.

Or, in otherwords, you are again lying - this study does not show that massive objects exhibit quantum behaviours. It shows the opposite - that those sorts of behaviours can only be seen in macromolecules if exacting conditions - and near-zero molecular density - is maintained.

Originally Posted By: Orac
There work has continued and there last paper in 2012 was published in Nature
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v7/n5/full/nnano.2012.34.html

Nature paper shows the same as the last one - QM states in macromolecules are not observed, except under experimental conditions where the intermolecualr interactions that lead to a loss of QM behaviour are eliminated by the experimenter.

Originally Posted By: Orac
The bottom line here is all molecules, atoms and objects have intrinsic QM properties

I never claimed otherwise; however, the part you insist on ignoring is that in larger structures (i.e. where they can interact with other molecules) these behaviours are lost, and the system behaves as described by classical mechanics.


Originally Posted By: Orac
Got it the global coherence NEVER DIES OR STOPS that we know it is sort of like the cosmic background radiation in laymans terms and your 50 year old mystery is solved for you.

But it is not solved; as you cannot explain macro behaviours based on the measurement of quantum features. Again, taking one small part of what I said and pretending it is all I said is a form of lying.

Why is it you cannot address the issues I raise without first lying about the claims I made? I clearly stated that QM is unable to explain how QM behaviours turn into the classical processes we observe in the macro-world - and nothing you've provided states otherwise. Having a model that ma explain the phenomena is a far cry from being able to take a known QM state and then extrapolate how that then creates a macro-state such as a thermodynamic disequilibrium across a membrane.

Originally Posted By: Orac

Again I will point out QM is doing nothing it is a description of the universe and that description as far as we know holds for anything in the universe. Whatever the system QM is describing is some underlying theory and it is that which controls the rules of the universe and I am sorry all chemistry must obey those rules a fact readily accepted by most chemists.

I never claimed those rules were not obeyed. Keep in mind, you're the one claiming that QM somehow 'rewrites' biology and biological evolution. I'm the one arguing that no - it does not - as biology and biological evolution obey they classical rules of chemistry, thermodynamics, etc, and that the QM properties you ascribe as being the re-writers (i.e. QM entropy) are either unappliable at this time (as we lack a framework to directly relate those into the macro world) or are outright falsifications on your part as to what QM states..

Originally Posted By: Orac
What you are arguing is that biological polymers are now exempt from rules that as far as we know every other thing in the universe plays by based on what?

How exactly did you get that from what I wrote?

Originally Posted By: Orac
Thats fine we are in agreement on that fact because at a QM level I can expalin to you why there ultimately must break down to a subset that involves only one driving factor, we call it emergent behaviour.

So now you're stealing my argument and claiming it as you own? However, emergence at most biological levels is explained nicely without QM. Even understanding the spontanious formation of monomers and their subsequent assemblage into self-replicating polymers, requires nothing more than good-ol' Gibbs free energy calculations and basic stoichiometry.

Originally Posted By: Orac
See some answers require actually no knowledge of biology itself something that may perhaps surprise you.

Except for the part where I had to explain how the biology actually worked, so you could try and fit it into your model :shakehead:

Originally Posted By: Orac
If you are happy with all that we may be ready to discuss simple versus complex life energetics.

I've been happy to discuss it since day 1 - you're the one whose been looking for excuses not to discuss it....

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#48297 - 03/10/13 06:16 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Tutor Turtle]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929713000736

Man now thought to be over 340,000 years old.

Not necessarily. Every gene in our bodies will show a different pattern of inheritance, meaning that if you trace a single gene (or set of genes - i.e. the 'y' chromosome) you'll find a different point in our evolutionary past when those genes came into our modern genetic makeup. Some genes are very old - ribosomal RNAs, for example, have changed little since we separated from chimps. Others are far newer - i.e. the gene which allows some humans to consume milk as adults is only 8000-10,000 years old.

And, as Bill mentioned, it is not exactly clear where along the human evolutionary path truly separate species exist; it may be that the ancestors who incorperated this Y chromosome may be the same species as us (defined by being able to have viable offspring via interbreeding), or they may not.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#48298 - 03/11/13 01:14 AM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: ImagingGeek]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I've been happy to discuss it since day 1 - you're the one whose been looking for excuses not to discuss it....


My problem was and still is you simply won't accept that biology has to play by the universe energetics and laws of entropy you seem to think that biology is somehow special.

You sort of agree QM descriptions sort of exist in macroobjects but that just some sort of inconvienent or legacy by product you sort of repeat that time and time again lets look at them

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Life doesn't experience any of that - all biomolicules will degrade at temps far below 3000K, high-powered lasers are no where to be seen, and there are no filtration systems or single-molecule generators to prevent a loss of quantum states due to interactions with other molecules.


Here we have the life doesn't see these conditions counter yet you miss the point that the conditions are simply created to isolate the effects. It is the same as biologists doing vivisections on animals to study things by your argument it's pointless because the animals dead.

So how about instead of saying I am lying based on bullshit and prayer because thats all you have done, you say you are a scientist ACT LIKE ONE.

Classic science problem I have shown to you that the effect exists now you need to act like a real scientist and show me evidence that says that it is not important and can be seperated out.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never claimed otherwise; however, the part you insist on ignoring is that in larger structures (i.e. where they can interact with other molecules) these behaviours are lost, and the system behaves as described by classical mechanics.


See here is the problem you are again claim the energetics of life is somehow unconnected to QM ready to go down a big dark hole.

TWO WORDS => BELL'S INEQUALITY

Here is the layman's version of explaining it
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/disproving_local_realism-79216

You want the wikipedia reference it's here and NOTE THE FIRST SENTENCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Originally Posted By: Bell's theorem

Bell's theorem is a no-go theorem famous for drawing an important line in the sand between quantum mechanics (QM) and the world as we know it classically. In its simplest form, Bell's theorem states:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.



So now you have a problem because all scientists in the hard science fields are calling GARBAGE on your response as no two atoms or even subatomic particles have a common reality to enable you to divorce QM.

Put bluntly above your idea is a no-go theorem.

You may want to search for the terms "Bell's inequality and matter" the only violation of the inequality ever shown was by entangling (http://phys.org/news1022.html)

So you keep claiming I am somehow lying or it isn't what I am saying but I am the one showing you reference after reference that what I am telling you is correct.

So now your complaining that we aren't aguing the energetics of life but you can't even get it thru your head that QM is the only not disproven theory that exists to cover the discussion and worse you are insisting QM is wrong.

I have no problem discussing it but when you start telling me QM is wrong sorry I call COMPLETE GARBAGE (and BILL yes I am being argumentative over this point because it's wrong at science).

ImagingGeek you do realize Einstein and Hawkings both got dragged back to ground trying to claim the same garbage. Hawkings couldn't defeat the argument in a black-hole good luck trying to beat the argument about "life in the universe".

If you want to argue your disproven trash classic physics you must first be absolutely certain you do not violate any of the only proven theorem covering your discussion or else falsify that theorem.

So as a scientist you have two options show me that what you propose does not violate QM or falsify QM ... take your choice there are no others.

Quantum information theory says no to your energetics theory take it from there.


I am a normal reasonable physics scientist and where I can be shown to be wrong I always concede as I did with one point you originally made and in a number of arguments I could be shown to be in error. To me it appears that some biology theories have not been checked against advances in QM and energy science and like all classic physics they can easily fall into error because they are based on wrong assumptions.

When your whole argument boils down to you don't accept quantum mechanics exists and is important in macro-matter then sorry to me you might as well go and join the flat earth society because that is the same mentality. The truely scary part is you say two physicists work with you and neither is alarmed at your views.

I would also like to ask Bill and Redenewur now we have teased the issue out of the complex biology what do you think?


Edited by Orac (03/11/13 03:00 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48302 - 03/11/13 02:18 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Having hopefully dealt with ImagingGeeks dismisal of QM I will outline the problem modern QM is throwing up.

Usually one expects modern QM to resolve by the correspondance principle back to the classic physics or at least old QM physics.

When ImagingGeek started this thread I noticed strangely that the issue of life entropy does not and it appears I am not the first as you will find in the calculation discussion.

The problem was originally set out by Erwin Schrödinger in his book "What is life" and its worth a quick read for background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life).

The bottom line of the discussion was Schrödinger's "paradox" which simply stated says life does not defy the second law of thermodynamics because an organism creates disorder outside itself (chemicals, heat etc) that more than makes up for the order of the organism.

ImagingGeek is basically arguing that same argument via Gibbs Free Energy and it's equations and that this holds together in classic physics and old QM. He then goes beyond that and tries to extinguish QM just because we reach the macro world which is crazy and I have dealt with that issue hopefully.

Let me state the argument from a modern QM perspective:

If you specify a precise physical system and then specifying the exact (mixed) state whose probability distribution is exp(-BE(p,q)) classically or whose density matrix is proportional to exp(-BH) under QM. These formulae only work for systems with many degrees of freedom that interact with each other. They're either in equilibrium or not. If they are, the formulae are applicable then the equilibrium state at a given conditions is essentially unique.

I was thinking I was going to have to write a rather long mathematical explaination and was discussing with colleagues and a friend of a friend suggested a link doing exactly what I was about to do

http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/information-geometry-part-11/

I not only agree with the mathematics but also the conclusions

Quote:

But the basic idea is compelling: an evolutionarily stable state is like a situation where our replicators ‘know all there is to know’ about the environment and each other. In any other state, the population has ‘something left to learn’—and the amount left to learn is the relative information we’ve been talking about! But as time goes on, the information still left to learn decreases!

Note: in the real world, nature has never found an evolutionarily stable state… except sometimes approximately, on sufficiently short time scales, in sufficiently small regions. So we are still talking about an idealization of reality! But that’s okay, as long as we know it.


The first statement sets up a typical QM statement and is somewhat profound if you think about it.

- Organisms will always get more and more complex or else they run out of "things to learn" and come into quantum equilibrium.

- The equations assume that organisms never forget information. Now I am not a biologist and I am not sure if that is true it occurs to me a gene around thousands of years ago may have been lost and you would need to adjust the calculations slightly if true.

- It is also setting up the slightly touchy QM question does this imply that organisms know "all the things to learn" or is this simply a description of some slightly deeper truth.


I would also like to say "things to learn" is a better survival description from what I said and here is my exact quote
Originally Posted By: orac

This was what I was getting at a complex organism has more things to attack and normal science entropy logic says it should be weaker BUT IT ISN'T that means something is important going on here .. so you missed my point.


To which ImagingGeek answered
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

There is no other answer to this other than "you are wrong". The degree of selection we see is a direct measure of the degree of selective forces experienced by the organism.

and he goes on to say
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

As a "rule" (because there are exceptions), bacteria are much more hardy than us, and can survive much wider swings in environmental conditions. And yes, they have compensatory mechanisms just like ours that allow them to do that.


There is perhaps some confusion in the term of complexity means and I certainly understand what ImagingGeek means when he states bacteria are more hardy than us for enviromental conditions but from a QM perspective they have a lot left to learn compared to us and I stand by my original comment and it is important and the QM mathematics backs it up.

I am working with a few peeps on why Gibbs Free Energy falls apart under modern QM, I suspect this was always sort of known because of reference to the Gibb's Paradox in classic physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_paradox) and I note there is an argument going on on wikipedia contributors about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGibbs_paradox) and they have called for physicists smile

I should say also Lubos Motl also has done a great article on mixed states and entropy where he was beating up Erik Verlinde over basically the same issue.
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/entropy-information-and-mixed-states.html
Originally Posted By: lubos motl

The whole notion of entropy was designed, and is still critically useful, for understanding of the irreversibility in the world because the increasing character of the entropy is its basic property.


I should say topically this article appeared today in physics.org which is sort of interesting if not directly related to discussion but doing the same sorts of thing using maths and QM to look at the problem of life
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-math-reveals-insight-life-born.html


Edited by Orac (03/11/13 03:49 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48303 - 03/11/13 09:34 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Orac, I may be a bit confused in some places but one thing I think you said is that entropy is different in QM than it is in classical physics. Then you said that for this reason you have to use QM entropy rather than classical entropy when discussing life. Now you have given us a link to a posting by Lubos Motl. I checked that link and read through his whole post. At one point in the post he said:
Originally Posted By: Motl
Also, the specific properties of quantum mechanics - such as interference and the ability to violate Bell's inequalities via entanglement - become irrelevant in statistical physics because the very goal of statistical physics is to consider the effect of having very many states that differ from each other in details and that decohere: whenever you have such large ensembles of states, the classical reasoning is becoming a good approximation. Decoherence guarantees that interference disappears. Consequently, the overall logic of quantum statistical physics is the same as it was in classical statistical physics.

Now here Motl seems to be to be saying that for larger systems, such as life, there is no visible difference between classic and QM entropy.

And you also said, based on your reading of the link to Baez:
Originally Posted By: Orac
- Organisms will always get more and more complex or else they run out of "things to learn" and come into quantum equilibrium.

Why would organisms always get more and more complex? It doesn't seem to me that they have to get more complex, they can just change. After all, they just have to know about their current environment, not what it was earlier. If they can handle the current environment they don't need to know how to handle the previous one, so they can forget it. Also the quote you give says they come into evolutionary equilibrium, not quantum equilibrium. I don't see that those are the same things at all.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#48304 - 03/12/13 02:42 AM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill

Now here Motl seems to be to be saying that for larger systems, such as life, there is no visible difference between classic and QM entropy.


Ok what he is saying is generally QM will approximate the classic theories at large scales we call it the correspondence principle.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle)

=> In physics, the correspondence principle states that the behavior of systems described by the theory of quantum mechanics (or by the old quantum theory) reproduces classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers. In other words, it says that for large orbits and for large energies, quantum calculations must agree with classical calculations.

Now there is a qualification here that the original theory was firstly correct and secondly being a classical theory it is an approximation and it may violate in the quantum domain. Think about Newtons laws with GR for example.

One of those two options seems to be failing with Gibbs free energy when used with biological life sciences unfortunately rewritting all this in relative entropy equations to check it is not trivial it's the sort of thing that one does for a doctorate. All I can tell at the moment is something is failing and others have clearly identified the same problem. The problem is compounded for me because I don't do biology I could probably attempt the check of Gibbs free energy for a straight chemical reaction in chemistry but thats not very helpful.

It will take probably a decade more for modern QM theory to successfully role out and check all our classic physics it isn't going to happen overnight.



Originally Posted By: Bill

Why would organisms always get more and more complex? It doesn't seem to me that they have to get more complex, they can just change. After all, they just have to know about their current environment, not what it was earlier. If they can handle the current environment they don't need to know how to handle the previous one, so they can forget it. Also the quote you give says they come into evolutionary equilibrium, not quantum equilibrium. I don't see that those are the same things at all.


Ok I will break this apart there are several ideas.

Firstly to store quantum information it must pack into a quantum spin. How that spin is encoded by the organisms DNA we don't have to get involved in it will be very complex. DNA will only have the ability to encode a certain number of spins per base pair and it may not even be per base pair it may need sequences that is all biological stuff I don't study perhaps ImagingGeek knows. I think it has something to do with protein foldings or something like that.

Essentially this becomes like computer bits where an 8 bit byte on a computer can only encode 256 discrete values.

Now your argument that the organism can stay the same is the same as saying I can hold a computer byte to a set value. I can do any problems I like so long as I don't require more than 256 different values.

The problem becomes the moment I need to add in a 257th entry I need to expand the information base and on a computer you could jump to a 9th bit but for simplicity they don't they jump to 16 bits.

See the same problem happening here computers as they evolve will get more and more complex because they are trying to deal with describing more complexity. Infact processor op-code sets similarly tend to bloat as well and we take that up with the next point.

Now lets talk about forgetting history and that too has a computer equivalent. Some 16 bit computers predominately RISC's drop the support for ever picking up or dealing with 8 bit Bytes they always work with 16 bits simply zeroing off the top 8 bits in what would have been an old byte instruction. What is imporatant here is they evolve by learning what they can ignore from history because it is no longer important and that implies intelligence smile

Now you may argue that there is no similarity between computer evolution and life but at this level there is and here is why.

When we started designing computers we had no idea of the end goal of what they would be expected to do. Thus the computer evolution is simply meeting the needs for taking the next step of complexity thus everything in a computer core continues to expand instruction bit width and memory.

Quantum information theory basically says the same sorts of things about the universe if we don't know the outcome from start the the system with head towards a state of more information.

For animals to evolve ergo they must encode more information or else they violate this central tennant of QM or don't evolve take your pick.

Now you may want to argue that evolution has stopped I can even tell you how to test it smile

I had not thought about life and QM much at all until I saw this thread and realised it.

Again I want to point out QM is not having anything to do with driving or being involved with evolution it is simply a description of what is happening and so long as life evolution is encoding more information it is not in violation of QM and the universe. ERGO life must continue to get more information complex to continue to evolve.

The bad news for creationists is that the system is acting as if it does not have a known endpoint or what you would call classically acting like an open system. Life is also acting like every other part of that system and thus is not special in any way.


Edited by Orac (03/12/13 08:34 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48305 - 03/12/13 12:02 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I would leave a little open excercise for ImagingGeek if he wants to take up the challenge.

The nasty problem I am left with he is how do we measure and define complexity or if you prefer "information left to learn" it is not going to be a simple as count genomes or anything like that because the fitness criteria imposed was complex.

In the article which basically double checked my maths

http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/information-geometry-part-11/

He tagged this into the work of John Maynard Smith which as an outsider from biology I know nothing about.

So perhaps if ImagingGeek could update us with how John Maynard Smiths work is viewed in modern biology and lets look at it from there.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48306 - 03/12/13 12:08 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
For Bill as an excercise this came up in a physics forum discussion today look carefully at the answer Lubos gives in particular look carefully at the challenge from Stephen Blake and look carefully at the retort from Lubos smile

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...es-in-warehouse

Do you understand what is happening here?


Edited by Orac (03/12/13 12:09 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48307 - 03/12/13 02:09 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
First things first.
Originally Posted By: Orac
For animals to evolve ergo they must encode more information or else they violate this central tennant of QM or don't evolve take your pick.

You seem to be equating evolution with an increase in complexity. That is not necessarily so. Using your computer comparison there are still a lot of applications out there that use 4 bit computers. They are such things as microwaves, locks, etc. In fact I suspect that there are a lot more 4 bit processors in use than all the other formats combined. Their uses are evolving, but they aren't getting more complex. Bacteria are the same way. They are continually evolving, but they aren't getting more complex. Evolution is basically variation in response to changes in the environment. That doesn't necessarily imply a need to become more complex, just different.

The variations are encoded in the DNA which is a string of molecules, well actually a molecule with a lot of identical nucleotides. The encoding is in the arrangement of the nucleotides. There is no need to study quantum spins to determine the code, just as there is no need to study the quantum spins of the atoms in a computer memory. All you need to know is the state of the memory element. You just need to know whether it is on or off. The information in the computer is in the series of on/off states, the information in the DNA is in the composition of each nucleotide of the string, ATD, CDG, etc. The quantum spin of the particles that make up the nucleotides doesn't enter into the coding.

All of the atoms in the DNA are held together in their strict alignments by QM, but after they get together it is just the sequence they are in that counts.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#48308 - 03/12/13 02:18 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Orac, no I have no idea what is going on there, but since it seems to be something to do with QM then I don't see that it would make any change in what I said in my previous answer. In evolution we aren't interested in quantum effects, we are just interested in the arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA, which aren't interpreted in terms of quantum states, just in terms of their sequence. No matter how the spins of the electrons are distributed in the atoms making up the DNA the critical matter is what is the sequence of the atoms when they are all hooked together.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#48309 - 03/13/13 12:27 AM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill

You seem to be equating evolution with an increase in complexity. That is not necessarily so. Using your computer comparison there are still a lot of applications out there that use 4 bit computers. They are such things as microwaves, locks, etc. In fact I suspect that there are a lot more 4 bit processors in use than all the other formats combined. Their uses are evolving, but they aren't getting more complex.


And now you have done exactly what the question I asked you to look at answers ... they were looking at a warehouse full of boxes and trying to describe it in QM terms ... doesn't get much more classic than that.

Anyhow you have fallen into the same trap look carefully at what you have said above.

A more complex app running on the same processor does not make the microprocessor more complex, well at least to me, everything here is about what the observation point is.

Strictly to me I put the observer point on the microprocessor then what you have said above is false the app running on the microprocessor makes no difference to the micro itself it was designed with some theoretical maximum in mind you even benchtest them. From your observer point you have chosen anything short of the worst case scenario is just some inferrior app a valid but different observer point.

See the problem observer viewpoint matters.

QM is well aware of the problem and accounts for it .... classic physics not so much they assume an absolute frame smile

Originally Posted By: Bill

Bacteria are the same way. They are continually evolving, but they aren't getting more complex. Evolution is basically variation in response to changes in the environment. That doesn't necessarily imply a need to become more complex, just different.


And here again you are now putting the density matrix on a different criteria the organisms above are treading water and recycling under my density matrix and there is a test for that but they are no longer evolving under the definition of evolution that we set the density matrix up under.

This goes back to sort of the original argument that ImagingGeek had about the ferrari versus the model T.

Now go back and read the article that did the maths again as he showed with the triangle in the circle the choice of parameters is objective.

We chose to define evolution as the change in information as it goes thru time (that was system A) and against it we tested fitness survival (system B).

This is the same problem people have with relativity because its essentially the same problem because we are working with relative entropies that people may see the same event differently, none of them are wrong they are just different observers.

My system A is as close as I can get to the universe energy view point and I am looking at life against that view because that is how energetics of the universe works and I want to test life complies to the rules.

I can't choose any other arbritary view point because it is irrelevant to the question I seek and if you like your comment may indeed be equally valid because you are defining evolution and complexity from a different perspective.

Technically if I could put your choices into a QM format I could even construct a matrix that converts between your format and mine showing that our two answers are compatable just different observer point ... same thing you do in relativity with two observers.

So my answer to you is you may be correct from your point of view but it has nothing to do with my argument because I was after the change in genes thru time and your organism is no longer changing genes it is rehashing old sequences so it's not evolving to me the universe needs no change in energetics to accomodate it. To you it may be evolving and thats fine you just defined evolution different.

Now if you go and look at the physics question with the warehouse you may understand what lubos is saying to the student basically he needs to define more because there are objectivity viewpoint issues with the limited information he gave. Lubos in his convoluted way is asking for more information and he refers to Peter Shor who asked it in a much simpler more layman way smile

Essentially this is the same problem as relativity there is no such thing as a zero reference frame .... in QM there is no local reality .... it is the same problem of who is the observer.

My observer is defined and he is watching the change in energetics thru time of life, choose a different criteria get a different result nothing going wrong here.



Edited by Orac (03/13/13 12:47 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48310 - 03/13/13 01:23 AM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
To conclude the above discussion by example I thought I would throw this one in as a seperate post and choose a rather interesting criteria for evolution being genome size.


Look at the data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome#Comparison_of_different_genome_sizes


I will exclude the 670Gb of the Amoeboid because that is disputed.

So the most evolutionary advanced animal using that criteria is the marbled lungfish at a whopping 130Gb and the most evolved plant is the Japanese-native, pale-petal at 150Gb.

I would need ImagingGeek to explain what the hell that DNA much is needed for, I guess alot of it is junk.

If you think that is a fair criteria there is an obvious flaw in it and it comes up in the entry that things with this length DNA replicate very slowly because it takes a very very long time to replicate that ammount of DNA. I suspect that gives you a clue under my energetics definition why these organisms have been successful because they are doing an interesting form of regulation that may prove successful in some instances.

Anyhow there is nothing wrong with that evolutionary order and under it humans arent very evolved (which may irk some people), its just a different observer point than the one I selected which is change in organism energetics thru time.


Edited by Orac (03/13/13 01:36 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48311 - 03/13/13 02:01 AM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I got down this far and suddenly I seem to see a major problem with what you are talking about.
Originally Posted By: Orac
And here again you are now putting the density matrix on a different criteria the organisms above are treading water and recycling under my density matrix and there is a test for that but they are no longer evolving under the definition of evolution that we set the density matrix up under.

And you and possibly the sources your are talking about seem to be changing the definition of evolution.
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

This is the definition that I am using. If you want to go on about something that isn't under this definition then you can do so, but don't talk about biological evolution when you are doing it.
Originally Posted By: Orac

So my answer to you is you may be correct from your point of view but it has nothing to do with my argument because I was after the change in genes thru time and your organism is no longer changing genes it is rehashing old sequences so it's not evolving to me the universe needs no change in energetics to accomodate it. To you it may be evolving and thats fine you just defined evolution different.

There you are wrong again. The genes ARE changing. That is the only way that the organism can change. It is just like installing a new program on your computer. It uses the same basic instructions, but does something different. In an organism the program (DNA) is constantly changing (mutating) for various reasons. Sometimes the changes are bad and the system crashes, sometimes they don't do anything, and sometimes they are a help. That is evolution in action.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#48312 - 03/13/13 05:06 AM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Then under how you are defining evolution what you are saying is fine remember GR only approximates to newtons law of gravity it goes well beyond it.

You seem to want me to mesh QM so that it becomes exactly classical evolution and that is never going to be possible.

My problem with your post above as a definition is take a super computer and you can crunch every possible outcome right now .. do you see why because you are excluding the possibility of the code expanding.

Humans and any organism is forever stuck with the number of genes it had .... you basically agree with creationsists at that point because we can't evolve from a much simpler organism.

No doubt you are then going to expand it say now all the treadwater recombination counts and they can also add in new codes and thats fine for you in a classic world but QM doesn't work like that.

To QM the recombinationals don't matter QM already "percieves" the answer simultaneously and all paths to possible outcomes exist simultaneously and all at once because the qm waves travel all paths simultaneously it already knows the most thermodynamically favoured and now all it needs to do is test it against the enviroment which involves stuff outside QM's knowledge or reach.

This is the hard bit for people using classic physics to get head's around and it goes against the grain because we are taught and interact with the world differently.

Go back to the basics and read it again Sascha's article does a reasonable job at it

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/are_you_real_quantum_mechanics-90221

Quote:

Let’s introduce the profound controversial issue:

In the mathematical description of quantum mechanics, everything not forbidden is mandatory. A particle moving from A to B takes every possible path from A to B simultaneously. This includes paths that involve highly improbable events like a photon dividing into an electron-positron pair that then annihilates to result again in a photon. A quantum electrodynamics (QED) prediction of the interaction between an electron and a magnetic field correctly describes the interaction to 14 decimal places. For more accuracy, interactions that do not strictly belong to QED may have to be taken into account (QCD or suchlike are similar animals though), and anyway, today’s measurement accuracy is not sufficient to show whether QED predicts still more precisely. However, with those caveats in mind, as far as we know, QED as such is correct to 15, 16, 17 … hell - it is simply correct, period. In order to predict this well with the QED theory, you must take paths into account, paths and interactions that the involved particles could have taken in as far as one can tell from the outcome, paths that seem ridiculously complicated.


So from a QM perspective it already knows all the answers about all combinations of a fixed genetic length the moment they appear because of the energetics involved and it doesn't care how ridiculously complicated the path is it knows the answer.

The problem here is you are defining evolution to a human time based procession and as with most things in the quantum domain it won't move like that and you will simply be an observer to a sequence playing out, trying to work out why you can't fully understand it with your trusty classic physics.

You probably now start to really see why people are desperate trying to build a quantum computer.

There is no way to resolve our views I can't make the quantum world behave like classic physics and get QM to play out in classic physics time and give you absolute text book evolution.

I would however point out that I am not alone in thinking along these lines there is a really good article to actually have a good think about probably to end all this on as I doubt we are going to convince each other

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-dawn-life.html

I am pretty sure I can guess what they are proposing because the same sorts of things struck me when ImagingGeek pricked my interest with this thread.

I still see Craig Venter thinks he is going to be able to ignite life old school biological way so it will be interesting to see who wins out and we shouldn't have long to wait.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23266-craig-venter-close-to-creating-synthetic-life.html


Edited by Orac (03/13/13 09:00 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48313 - 03/13/13 02:00 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Orac, obviously there isn't much good going to come out of continuing this discussion, since your take on it is that you are right and we are wrong. I think your problem is that you have gotten caught up in the student syndrome where you know everything you need to know and everybody else is wrong. This is a common mistake made by students.

So the thing about it is, you have decided that QM has all the answers. But one thing that you have to keep in mind is that classical physics has been working wonderfully well in the its range of applicability for a long time now. Where it is applicable it provides very good answers. And so far, while there may have been hints as to how to extend QM into the larger world where classical physics is still working, nobody has actually managed to completely bring them together. So that you are trying to tell people who have very good observations of how evolution works that they don't know what they are talking about, based on unproven, or at least untested, theoretical ideas.

So I will ask. Does your explanation provide any testable predictions as to how evolution works? Or is it just a theoretical assemblage that is so complex you can't work it out? Basically the classical approach that you so deride is providing answers that can be worked out and tested in the lab and in the field.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#48314 - 03/13/13 06:41 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I do not make decisions about who is right and wrong I let the evidence and science do that, I simply outline the best argument I can answering all points which is why I was getting headspins from ImagingGeek jumping all over the shop and he was the only one insisting anyone was wrong, I believe I was still defining things before even getting back to the argument. I believe I pointed out a few factual wrong that science had decided were incorrect it wasn't my personal view.

As for QM having all the answers then you don't understand QM at all because it has zero answers, I repeat it is merely a description of how to make sense of the world around us. It gives exactly zero idea in it's current form as what process is causing these things you need some theory beyond QM for that.

QM is a bit like a cartography or other mapping disciplines it doesn't answer tell you anything other than the lay of the land. To that end it can be useful because it can map out things that are not easy to see or go against classic logic like light passing thru both slits simultaneously, QM sheds no light on why it behaves like that it just simply describes that it does.

I believe that is about the fifth or six time I have said that and yet you still try and insist that I am trying to use QM to answer something. So if you want to denegrate me to being a student that is always trying to be right, what is someone that can't seem to grasp the obvious no matter how many times they are told?

The only thing QM is useful for is as a map it can tell you when you are lost and when you are on the right path thats all it can do. Infact most of the checking of QM is doing absurdly crazy things that shouldn't work in the classic physics but using the QM map says should happen.


You say I am trying to tell you how evolution works that is incorrect I have not a clue why it works I am describing what it is doing from a QM perspective and that is a piece of information that people may not have realised. It seems I was not alone in realizing that fact there are alot of smart people around.

Initially you all started attacking me that I was wrong and there was something wrong with me and I was being argumentative. Next I got the QM stops at macro size crap from you guys which has long been dealt with by science and settled. Now I get the personal attack and tirade because I dare to assert that there is a mismatch between the QM calculation (which someone else also did as a check) and a stupid classical theory.

As I said countless times I do not think there is anything dramatically wrong with evolution theory I think they misunderstand the energetics that is all and that is probably no surprise because under classic physics you can't even answer what energy is and where it comes from and goes to ... I believe we did the dance over energy.

Now you ask and made the first sensible comment in your little dummy spit ... that is does the QM perspective say anything useful and does it say anything testable and the answer is yes on both fronts.

The energetics should be testable because the genetic sequence should quantum walk being a classic flat earther you will have no idea what that is so I will explain via an easily testable experiment.

Here is your basic experiment:

Take a litre of water in a tank and in one side of it drop 1 molecule of luciferase, into the other side of ATP molecule. Luciferase + ATP is the photonic reaction in a firefly

The chemical reaction catalyzed by firefly luciferase takes place in two steps:
luciferin + ATP => luciferyl adenylate + PPi
luciferyl adenylate + O2 => oxyluciferin + AMP + light


Classic Expectation:

The speed of the molecules vibrations will be around 600 m/sec as a sort of average temperature number. If you divid the size of the molecules versus the size of the water it should take around 10 years on average before you ever see a flash of light.

Quantum Expectation:

The moment the molecules enter the water they will sense each other thru there energetics and because they test all paths simultaneously. They will then quantum walk towards each other they will meet within minutes on average.

These days you can even track individual molecules so you could visually watch it happen. Try it very simple experiment and there is no classical explaination for it.

They started it with photons

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/sep/17/photon-pairs-take-a-quantum-walk

Moved it to atoms
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100310083836.htm
http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/07/cesium-atoms-are-able-to-take-a-quantum-walk/

Then on to molecules
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/14/7/073050

Then shown in organics molecules
http://jcp-bcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpbcp/v2/i11/p11B603_s1?


Assuming QM energetics is playing a part in genetics the genomes will quantum walk and there is simply no classical explaination for that ... so test it .... pretty basic really.

There are already hints it can do it but it's not conclusive I want to see a full quantum walk.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm


Assuming it does quantum walk then our calculations are correct and you have definitely got some small problems to fix in classical evolution.

QM won't answer why the above is would be happening other than saying it is acting like everything else in the universe but QM is most always testable, it's not like abstract string theory. Your complaint about it being complex is because QM says the map of the universe is that complex we have no idea why it is blame that on god if you so desire.

If you wanted to go further you could then try isolating up the mathematics for a number of individual effects under the fittness criteria and see what holds and is possibly able to be described by QM. That is sort of how QM prized out the 40 odd physics parameters that seem to define the universe ... its called painstaking and exacting science testing.


Edited by Orac (03/13/13 06:48 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48315 - 03/13/13 08:21 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Well, now you have a whole page of links to things that don't seem to have much to do with DNA, which is what we were discussing. We were discussing how changes in the DNA molecule would cause changes in an organism. At this stage of biological research about all that can be said is that the changes will occur. And at this time the lowest level we can look at is the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA. While this sequence depends on QM to hold it together in a stable way QM will not tell us anything about the result of changes in the sequence of nucleotides. All we can do is look at the pattern of nucleotides and figure out how they relate to characteristics expressed by the organism. Knowing the QM explanation of how they hook up doesn't help much there. The big question facing biology is what is the relationship between the DNA sequence and the characteristics of the organism. Tracking the DNA sequence doesn't depend on QM, it is a primarily classical problem.

While I am sure that there are plenty of people who would love to know the QM explanation of the formation of the DNA and the transcription of the DNA code to an actual organism it is an area that is extremely complex and most biologists can live just fine doing what they can do without it. Face it, learning biology is a full time job, having to learn QM on top of it would create an impossible condition. Getting a PhD would probably extend to something like 20 years.

In other words, evolution depends on changes in a system which closely approximates a classical system, and there is no significant reason to try to get a deeper understanding from a QM standpoint when all it would do would be to make it even harder to understand. Think about interplanetary travel. General Relativity provides a much closer approximation of orbital dynamics than Classical Physics. But they don't use GR, because Classical Physics provides a "good enough" approximation, and is much easier to use.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#48317 - 03/14/13 12:41 AM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I am not disagreeing with you that this needs to be taught as mainstream theory or anything but at least some research people should be aware of the true reality so they can double check the classic theories.

We still get people with extreme GR knowledge to check classical gravity teaching don't we?

I have said all along that I don't think there is anything major wrong with the theory and I would say the same of teaching good old newton.

So I agree that biologists don't need QM understanding but they do need to at least listen when other disciplines tell them they need to look back at something because it doesn't seem to make sense which is all I asked.

I will give you an example from today there was an article about life and a subject we have discussed being triple-alpha

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-foundations-carbon-based-life-room-error.html

Now if a biologist tries to tell me that no thats not true I am sort of going to object strenuously because the whole dam universe depends on it being so.

Understanding of universe is expanding fast at the moment and some of the sciences are going to have to revise small parts of there understanding it's not like it is going to overturn the entire field or anything.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#48321 - 03/14/13 01:07 PM Re: 'The Scars of Human Evolution' [Re: Orac]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Orac
My problem was and still is you simply won't accept that biology has to play by the universe energetics and laws of entropy you seem to think that biology is somehow special.

Since I have never once claimed this - indeed, I have argued stridently the opposite - I have to wonder if its worth replying to you anymore. You consistently lie and misrepresent what I have said previously - since you cannot even be honest about things printed half a page above your replies, how can we trust anything else you claim?

Originally Posted By: Orac
Here we have the life doesn't see these conditions counter yet you miss the point that the conditions are simply created to isolate the effects.

No, the conditions were created to prevent the mechanisms that normally destroy quantum phenomena at the macro level. That is the point I've been trying to make all along - under the conditions you see in biological organisms, quantum phenomena are not observed (except, perhaps in a few limited cases like photocapture systems), as the bulk-nature of the environment destroys (blurs, whatever you want to call it) quantum states.

Originally Posted By: Orac
So now your complaining that we aren't aguing the energetics of life but you can't even get it thru your head that QM is the only not disproven theory that exists to cover the discussion and worse you are insisting QM is wrong.

I'm not insisting that QM is wrong; only that your claims vis-a-vis QM are wrong.

I clipped your bit on bells theorem, to keep things short. I'd simply point out that it is not clear if his theorm is correct. It even says that in your own wikipedia article. Secondly, even if it is correct (and I'd take that bet) it still doesn't support your claims. At this time we cannot explain macrophenomina using QM principals. That's not to say that QM cannot explain macropheomina, but rather that the science hasn't advanced to that point as yet.

We continually circle this point, and you consistently throw up strawmen (bells therom being the most recent) to avoid the issue. So I'm going to give you a very simple problem to solve using QM. This is a very simple problem - we're talking a grade 11 biology/chemistry, easily solved using classical mechanics. Since I cannot prove a negative, this is your chance to prove me wrong, by solving a bulk-materials problem using QM methadologies. I'm not going to argue QM with you anymore until you can satisfy us on this point.

Here is the simplest (and most critical) aspect of biological thermodynamics. Solve it using solely QM principals (and show us the formula/papers/etc supporting the solution):

=================================================
All bioenergetic processes rely on the pumping of protons across impermeable membranes. This creates an electrochemical potential across the membrane which can be harness to power chemical reactions, biological motors, etc. Assuming:
a) a perfectly impermeable barrier,
b) an internal pH of 7.8 and an external pH of 7.4
c) an infinite volume on either side of the membrane
d) a perfect energy-capture device embedded in the membrane

How much energy can be harnessed from a single proton passes through the energy-capture device?
========================================

Bryan


Edited by ImagingGeek (03/14/13 01:58 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.